Building a stronger Qantas

[Oneworldplus2]

Especially the ones I had on my last QF flight number operated by BA! Some scary creatures


Sent from my iPad using Aust Freq Fly app

Hottest FA's l've ever seen, LAN; EZE-SCL sector 10 years ago.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

This is a yes and no case. Qf don't even guarentee all PER-SYD QF services are operated by a skybed, and they don't charge any price difference between a skybed service and a non-skybed service.
For example on Oct 20 QF are offering skybeds on QF580 (B744) for $1519, they are offering a A332 service a 2 hours before for $1519 in J, and another service that morning in a B763 in J for $2014... AFAIK only one of those services are skybed services. So QF have not guarenteed you anything, they have simply said there are skybeds.

I agree harvyk. Not all QF flights to Europe are on A380's either (...yet)

 

[oz_mark]

But chances are that a court would rule that the advertisement showed a skybed seat, similar in nature to the one which you received, with a similar level of features.

Well, you would have thought Qantas would have learnt from their experience in the UK a few years back:ASA Adjudication on Qantas Airways Ltd - Advertising Standards Authority, in particular point 4.

4. One viewer also challenged whether the depiction of the Skybed in ad (a) was misleading, because he believed they reclined at an angle and the flat version was available only on their new planes which were not in operation when the ad appeared.

The complaint was upheld.

 

[amaroo]

Hottest FA's l've ever seen, LAN; EZE-SCL sector 10 years ago.

Maybe this deserves a new thread.....haven't checked, might already exists :!::!:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is a yes and no case. Qf don't even guarentee all PER-SYD QF services are operated by a skybed, and they don't charge any price difference between a skybed service and a non-skybed service.
For example on Oct 20 QF are offering skybeds on QF580 (B744) for $1519, they are offering a A332 service a 2 hours before for $1519 in J, and another service that morning in a B763 in J for $2014... AFAIK only one of those services are skybed services. So QF have not guarenteed you anything, they have simply said there are skybeds.

The general thing when claiming false advertising is that you need to prove that you have suffered a financial loss as a result of that advertising. Now to be fair, stating that you wouldn't have purchased a J class seat had you known that it was only a mark I and you specifically saw a mark II might count.

But chances are that a court would rule that the advertisement showed a skybed seat, similar in nature to the one which you received, with a similar level of features.

I can only go by what was posted on here... that there is an advertisement for qantas b747 services which show a flat mark II sky bed. if that is the case, and the 747 is being promoted in that way, then it would seem that it could be misleading, as in the uk case.

are we sure there is a requirement for financial loss in order for a claim of misleading advertising?

 

[oz_mark]

I can only go by what was posted on here... that there is an advertisement for qantas b747 services which show a flat mark II sky bed. if that is the case, and the 747 is being promoted in that way, then it would seem that it could be misleading, as in the uk case.

are we sure there is a requirement for financial loss in order for a claim of misleading advertising?

You'd almost think we've had this discussion before

 

[harvyk]

are we sure there is a requirement for financial loss in order for a claim of misleading advertising?

There would need to be some sort of loss, either actual or potential, the fact that someone could be tricked into purchasing a product which they would otherwise not have purchase would count as a potential loss.

In the UK case it’s possible that someone could chose QF over other fully flat seat options as there where likely other options which offered fully flat bed style seats from UK to AU (thus a potential loss had they paid more to fly with QF). Of course this all academic as the UK law is no doubt different to the Australian law.

Infact you might find part of the reason that QF do not offer any price difference between a flight with skybeds + AVOD compared to a flight with convertable seats + main screen is so they can do change of equipments without needing to pay out difference in fares.

 

[harvyk]

You'd almost think we've had this discussion before

Yeah I get the feeling of deja vu

 

[harvyk]

For those wondering about the loss component... Taken from ACCC's FAQ's...

[h=3]Can I take private action?[/h] If you have suffered a loss as a result of a business' misleading or deceptive conduct or misrepresentation, you may have a private right of action under legislation. Courts can order damages, injunctions and other orders against businesses found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. If you have lost money as a result of misleading conduct, you may need to seek legal advice about taking court action against the business involved. Alternatively, depending on the amount of money involved, you may be able to lodge a claim in your local small claims tribunal.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For those wondering about the loss component... Taken from ACCC's FAQ's...

[h=3]Can I take private action?[/h] If you have suffered a loss as a result of a business' misleading or deceptive conduct or misrepresentation, you may have a private right of action under legislation. Courts can order damages, injunctions and other orders against businesses found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. If you have lost money as a result of misleading conduct, you may need to seek legal advice about taking court action against the business involved. Alternatively, depending on the amount of money involved, you may be able to lodge a claim in your local small claims tribunal.

ah yes... it says if you have suffered a loss then you can bring an action... you are not re ain't on the ACCC to do that.

however, individuals are entitled to make a complaint to the ACCC and then the ACCC can take it's own action. in that case I do not believe you need to show loss, just that you were misled? the section you have quoted turns on the word 'private action'. the big fines for misleading advertising come from action taken by the ACCC or other consumer protection bodies in the various states, not the individual...

 

[nlagalle]

ah yes... it says if you have suffered a loss then you can bring an action... you are not re ain't on the ACCC to do that.

however, individuals are entitled to make a complaint to the ACCC and then the ACCC can take it's own action. in that case I do not believe you need to show loss, just that you were misled? the section you have quoted turns on the word 'private action'. the big fines for misleading advertising come from action taken by the ACCC or other consumer protection bodies in the various states, not the individual...

So by your definition you could take action on nearly any advertisement..

* McDonalds burgers do not look like the ones in the ads.

* I don't get the same happy happy joy joy feelings when I drink Coke.

* The movie trailer to X movie made it look so good, but the movie was so bad.

* car companies advertising the economy of the car on petrol when in real life the consumption is much higher.

* Virgin advertising and selling PE seats then getting stuck with a "rogue" aircraft.

Should I keep going? Seriously Mel_traveller you are clutching at straws. You can't show what "loss" you might incur between travelling on a skybed mk1 to mk2.

 

[harvyk]

ah yes... it says if you have suffered a loss then you can bring an action... you are not re ain't on the ACCC to do that.

however, individuals are entitled to make a complaint to the ACCC and then the ACCC can take it's own action. in that case I do not believe you need to show loss, just that you were misled? the section you have quoted turns on the word 'private action'. the big fines for misleading advertising come from action taken by the ACCC or other consumer protection bodies in the various states, not the individual...

True, but the ACCC is going to want to know what sort of loss you might make (even if you didn't make an actual loss) prior to going after a company for a false advertisement given they have limited resources. They would determine if a reasonable person may change their purchasing plans due to seeing that poster, and what a reasonable person may then expect on purchasing that product, and only if it's significantly different, or if the odds of receiving a skybed full stop are very low (eg they only run 1 skybed service per month), would they likely step in.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

there is a difference between product puff, and misleading advertising.

macdonald's hamburgers may not look like the advertisement, but that is product puff. the product is still the same, tastes the same etc etc. courts have held that puffery is not misleading.

that is completely different to a car company advertising a stated fuel economy but not delivering on it, that is clearly misleading.

a completely flat bed, versus a sloping one is a material difference to me. but that is because I cannot sleep on a slopng bed.

why go to the effort of pulling a file photo of a flat bed, when a sloping one would do? (and they would have file photos of that).

the test for misleading is an objective test, and whether the conduct was likely to mislead or deceive members of the class or group of persons to whom the conduct was directed. (note there does not need to be any intention on behalf of the advertiser... they may do it completely innocently)

you do not in fact have to suffer loss... if for example you see an advertisement offering free phone calls, but those phone calls are not free, then it doesn't matter if you have not availed yourself of the offer or not, you are entitled to lodge a complaint.

or perhaps for example if you take a complaint about misleading advertising for free range chickens... you may not buy the chicken (because you know the advertising is misleading) but you are still entitled to make a complaint to prevent future claims of free range...

with intense competition between virgin and qantas... a reasonable person may well think that flat beds were being introduced on 747s in direct competition to virgin.

at the end of the day... I haven't seen the advertisement... but I can't understand why there is a defense of a poster which could quite as easily have featured the correct image...?

 

[medhead]

Car fuel consumption is measured according to a defined standard. Note the city cycle/highway cycle figures. So not misleading for car companies to quote that number at all. just means that you don't drive on the same cycle. But the consumption figures being all measured to the same standard provides a valid means of comparison.

 

[drron]

Well I would consider the Ad mere puffery.
I defend it because i believe getting lawyers involved in such trivial matters is taking the world to HEL in a HND basket.And we all pay for it in increased fares etc.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

I am far from being a fan of Qantas. I do not use them for International flights. However they are not alone.
Most airlines seem to advertise their best product. It takes much research and experience to find the fitment of the aircraft
on a particular flight. Many of the members will fly interstate to pick up the metal of their choice.

One of the great benefits of Forums such as this is the awareness of the respect ( or lack of respect ) that
airlines show their pax.

Supermarkets tell you that they are "Fresh" or that they are "Cheap" - but are they.
Airlines advertise "Flat Beds" They are changing the definition of flat by common usage.

The big issue is "Truth in Advertising" But how far can we go in protecting the consumer ?

Fortunately we members of this Forum are much to smart and savy to be sucked in by mere advertising - or are we :?:

 

[mannej]

Mel, would you call this false advertising? (Found off theqantassource)

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

Copied this from another website earlier today :



"HOWEVER when I worked with Qantas Frequent Flyer Club, the customer was always WRONG". (Not Good Enough - basically a complaints site )

 

[nlagalle]

there is a difference between product puff, and misleading advertising.

macdonald's hamburgers may not look like the advertisement, but that is product puff. the product is still the same, tastes the same etc etc. courts have held that puffery is not misleading.

that is completely different to a car company advertising a stated fuel economy but not delivering on it, that is clearly misleading.

a completely flat bed, versus a sloping one is a material difference to me. but that is because I cannot sleep on a slopng bed.

why go to the effort of pulling a file photo of a flat bed, when a sloping one would do? (and they would have file photos of that).

the test for misleading is an objective test, and whether the conduct was likely to mislead or deceive members of the class or group of persons to whom the conduct was directed. (note there does not need to be any intention on behalf of the advertiser... they may do it completely innocently)

you do not in fact have to suffer loss... if for example you see an advertisement offering free phone calls, but those phone calls are not free, then it doesn't matter if you have not availed yourself of the offer or not, you are entitled to lodge a complaint.

or perhaps for example if you take a complaint about misleading advertising for free range chickens... you may not buy the chicken (because you know the advertising is misleading) but you are still entitled to make a complaint to prevent future claims of free range...

with intense competition between virgin and qantas... a reasonable person may well think that flat beds were being introduced on 747s in direct competition to virgin.

at the end of the day... I haven't seen the advertisement... but I can't understand why there is a defense of a poster which could quite as easily have featured the correct image...?

So you haven't seen the ad, yet you are talking about "big fines"? They advertise "skybed" so they have a photo of a skybed! it isn't misleading at all. So as you say it is "puff".

 

[Danger]

Sorry, everyone. I had no intention of setting the cat among the pigeons. Personally, I feel the advert is misleading but it doesn't upset me particularly.

Honestly, that's a stretch!! Firstly, how many regular punters are going to know the difference between a skybed mk1 or mk2? And secondly, it's a skybed. The wording etc doesn't say what model of skybed does it?

Unless they actually state it's a mark II skybed, then I doubt it would be misleading, as they do offer a skybed service from PER-SYD and the B747's are being upgraded to receive the mark II...
Assuming any authority did anything QF could simply state "it was a file photo which is representative of the product on offer".

Besides, beyond the AFF community and a few other plane enthusiasts I doubt anyone would know the difference between the mark I and the mark II just based on a 10 second glance of a billboard.

I think they'd know the difference when when they got onboard and were sloping in their seat, rather than being straight. The adverts also started well before the 747s were announced as being upgraded (and I think it would be a long time before the 747 doing the PER run would have mark IIs. And I would argue it's certainly not representative of the product on offer.

OMG this thread is getting petty when we are saying QF has mislead the public when they pictured a different version of skybed...

The car company's will say overseas version of the car shown in the ad and no one calls this false advertising.

When i do the flight from PER to SYD if i had a skybed i would be happy regards of the version 1 or 2... better than trying to sleep in economy.

Rant over.....!!!!

When the car companies advertise an overseas version the ads come with the subtle 'overseas version shown'. I don't recall seeing a similar caveat on the QF ads. Additionally, while we'd all be happy to have a skybed, would we all be happy if we'd purchased a skybed seat based on the assumption that it was horitzontal rather than sloped? We're not talking about a different colour blanket or a white wine in the photo instead of red; horizontal v sloped is a fairly significant difference. There's been many a discussion on chosing BA across the Atlantic rather than AA because their J seats are horizontal.

I would have thought if the advert specifically mentioned per-syd, and shows a complete horizontal bed, then that falls in the above category? how hard is it to find a file picture of a mark I bed and just be honest? it might well mislead a member of the public who thinks that qf is introducing full flat beds to compete with virgin's cradle seats... that is not an unreasonable conclusion... ??

It certainly does show a mark II skybed and, I agree, how hard is it to get a photo of a mark I? I think the reason is the mark I is not as appealing as the mark II.

This is a yes and no case. Qf don't even guarentee all PER-SYD QF services are operated by a skybed, and they don't charge any price difference between a skybed service and a non-skybed service.

However, on services operated by a 747 (as the ad states), a skybed is available and, according to the ad, it's horizontal. No, they're not charging a premium, I agree, but they are depicting a certain level of comfort (or product) on the 747 service.

I agree harvyk. Not all QF flights to Europe are on A380's either (...yet)

Agreed. But, correct me if I'm wrong, don't the ads talking about the A380 specifically say something like 'available on selected services operated by the A380'? The ad in question specifically refers to skybeds being available on the 747 service and the indication is a horizontal skybed. Again, there is no caveat. Indeed, they can't provide anything (such as 'selected 747s') because as yet they don't have any offering this product, nor, I suspect, will we ever see one doing regular domestic ops.

Well, you would have thought Qantas would have learnt from their experience in the UK a few years back:ASA Adjudication on Qantas Airways Ltd - Advertising Standards Authority, in particular point 4.

The complaint was upheld.

Very interesting.

. . . Should I keep going? Seriously Mel_traveller you are clutching at straws. You can't show what "loss" you might incur between travelling on a skybed mk1 to mk2.

Some excellent examples. Proving a loss is difficult and I would be very, very surprised if the law was as straight forward as having to do so in order to provde misleading or deceptive conduct. Again, though, I'm not crying foul or making a big deal out of the ad; I merely posted information for the point of discussion.

Well I would consider the Ad mere puffery. I defend it because i believe getting lawyers involved in such trivial matters is taking the world to HEL in a HND basket.And we all pay for it in increased fares etc.

I agree. I'm not suggesting any action, to be clear.

So you haven't seen the ad, yet you are talking about "big fines"? They advertise "skybed" so they have a photo of a skybed! it isn't misleading at all. So as you say it is "puff".

We'll agree to disagree. I think it is misleading but I'm not advocating action.

For what it's worth, does anyone remember the JR and Sue Ellen ads for the new 747 SYD-DFW service? The ad featured mark II skybeds, which don't exist on this service. Similarly, the Qantas Socceroos promo for a business class flight several months ago to JNB also featured mark II skybeds, on the 747. Although I also find them both misleading, the big difference is neither ad featured a passenger sleeping horizontally. How many people would be calling the JR and Sue Ellen add misleading if it showed one or both of them in a mark II skybed?

And please don't start a new thread based on my post!